US v. Keyon Nelson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00200-HEH-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999935409].. [15-4597]

Appeal: 15-4597

Doc: 22

Filed: 09/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4597

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEYON D. NELSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00200-HEH-1)

Submitted:

August 25, 2016

Decided: September 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Patrick L.
Bryant, Appellate Attorney, Mary E. Maguire, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J.
Boente, United States Attorney, Olivia L. Norman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4597

Doc: 22

Filed: 09/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Keyon

D.

Nelson

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

sentencing him to 30 months’ imprisonment upon revocation of his
supervised

release.

plainly unreasonable.

Nelson

contends

that

his

sentence

is

Finding no error, we affirm.

We review sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised
release to determine whether they “fall[] outside the statutory
maximum”

or

are

“plainly

unreasonable.”

United

States

v.

Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks
omitted), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015).
whether

the

sentence

is

unreasonable[,]

.

“We first decide
.

.

follow[ing]

generally the procedural and substantive considerations that we
employ in [our] review of original sentences . . . .”
States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006).

United

“Only if a

revocation sentence is unreasonable must we assess whether it is
plainly so.”
A

Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373.

revocation

sentence

is

procedurally

reasonable

if

the

district court considered the policy statements in Chapter Seven
of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual and the applicable 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors.
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2012).

Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373; see

The court must provide an adequate

statement of reasons for the revocation sentence it imposes, but
this statement need not be as specific or as detailed as that
required in imposing an original sentence.
2

United States v.

Appeal: 15-4597

Doc: 22

Filed: 09/26/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010); see United States
v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 2013) (“[M]ere reference to
[factors omitted from § 3583(e)] does not render a revocation
sentence

procedurally

unreasonable

when

those

factors

are

relevant to, and considered in conjunction with, the enumerated
§ 3553(a) factors.”).

A revocation sentence is substantively

reasonable if the court stated a proper basis for concluding
that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed.
461 F.3d at 440; see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e).

Crudup,
However,

“the sentencing court retains broad discretion to . . . impose a
term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum.”

Padgett, 788

F.3d at 373 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Our

review

of

the

record

reveals

substantive error by the district court.

no

procedural

or

The court’s passing

reference to the need to provide just punishment, in the context
of

the

court’s

sentence

reasoning

plainly

as

a

unreasonable.

district court’s order.

whole,

does

Accordingly,

not

render

the

we

affirm

the

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3